Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Aug 4, 2010 Full story: www.cnn.com 201,321

A federal judge in California has knocked down the state's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, ruling Wednesday that the state's controversial Proposition 8 violates the U.S. Constitution.

Full Story

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156366 Aug 25, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>Only if you are studying a single group, Hooker was comparing two groups and for that she needed matched pairs which met specified relevant comparables, race, age, education, etc. The idea was to see if one could be distinguished from the other and that is not possible if you have two random groups. The reality you continue to ignore is that if homosexuality were in fact a mental illness, it wouldn't matter who was in the Gay group, the ones who reviewed the tests should have been able to distinguish each and everyone of them as being mentally ill. You are free to go on about this nonsense from your unqualified hack all you want, but the truth is that he proved absolutely NOTHING and as such, I'm done with you.
There's nothing in Hooker's study indicating she was "matching-up" subjects, that's just a figment of your silly imagination.

Mind you, it would have been useful had she done that, but that's exactly the problem with Hooker's work -- no rigor.

All of her homosexual subjects were referred to her by the Mattachine Society, an old school gay activist organization. Had Hooker been as exacting as you want us to believe she was, she would not have used a single homosexual from this group because the Mattachine Society had a vested interest in supplying the best homosexuals they could get for her.

In other words, you're attributing exacting standards to her -- matched pairs -- that she simply didn't use. Indeed, as incredulous as it seems, it appears it never occurred to the woman the Mattachine Society was stacking the deck.

Secondly, the APA listed homosexuality as a mental illness over 70 years -- until 1973. During this times tons of studies supported this listing. You want us to believe Hooker's deeply-flawed study was ground-breaking when the fact is, it was all but ignored until 1973 when gay activists forced on the APA and the world.

Let me repeat that: for the 70 year period the APA listed homosexuality as a mental disorder hundreds of studies supported this conclusion, at least this is the opinion of Dr. Charles Socarides. In his book, "Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality" he writes:

==========

"...To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"

==========

In other words, the APA dismissed the Hooker paper because it was not as convincing as the hundred other papers showing homosexuality IS a mental disorder.

And this is to say, there were at least 100 scientific papers at the time of the Hooker paper showing homosexuality WAS a mental disorder the APA thought had more merit than Hooker's.

In summary, Hooker was a hired gun for the Mattachine Society and as such her paper was absolutely worthless as a scientific research paper.

That's all.
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#156367 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Gad -- can't you even read simple English?
From the Landess paper:
----------
"... Despite her lack of clinical experience in what is called "projective techniques," according to Hooker, she administered and scored the Rorschach test herself. After scoring the test and constructing profiles, she placed the results in random order and passed them along to two experts in Rorschach analysis. Thus we have Hooker's scored results analyzed by Drs. Klopfer and Meyer, with two tasks in mind: first, to rate the subjects on "overall adjustment" and second, to see if they could determine which were the homosexuals and which were the heterosexuals.
http://www.angelfire.com/vt/dbaet/evelynhooke...
----------
You're reading an angelfire shill piece, numpty. Written by someone who's PhD wasn't in the field of psychology. Get that straight, alledged straighty. His, and your, blathering about the study group are a bit rich. The year was 1957. The prevailing attitude about homosexuals was on par with yours. A hate fest steeped in... wait for it... no scientific evidence. There had been no more 'proof' that homosexuality was a mental disorder than there had been proof that blacks and women were inferior to men, or that the genuinely mentally ill were possessed by demons. However, by 1957, it was still common knowledge that blacks were inferior and women were also a bit on the intellectually challenged side. The mentally ill, in spite of having been lifted from the category of possessed by demons were (and still are) irrationally feared by the general population. You sir, are perpetuating garbage from a bygone era (or should I say error). But I digress, finding a random sampling of homosexuals in 1957 would have been about as easy as finding a viable neuron in your head. It also appears that the woman you find in contempt had difficulty finding heterosexual individuals willing to partake in the study. I wonder why!

The bottom line is that you, and your latest shill for hatred, are missing the point of the woman's study. She got a sampling of gays and heteros to fill out some basic tests, like the Rorschach, and had others look at the results. Her findings were simple, gays couldn't be distingquished from heteros based upon some tests used to determine mental illness.

Find us a study conducted on a population you won't jump up and down about that refutes her conclusions. You must avoid hate groups like the FRC and mAssResistance though. They've already been shown to be biased, repeatedly. Hooker's 'bias' was based upon her experiences over the course of the two or so decades prior to her '57 paper. Specifically, she'd known gays and had yet to find one with horns protruding from their brow.
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#156368 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
(Yawn)
In her 1957 report, Evelyn Hooker did not use a random sample to test the stability of homosexuals, but allowed gay rights activists to recruit those homosexuals most likely to illustrate her thesis that homosexuality is not a pathology. Individuals who proved unstable were deleted from the final sample.
Hey ignoramus, she excluded people that were undergoing psychiatric treatment for both sides, gay and straight, as part of her study group for a reason. She wanted to see if others could detect a difference between two groups, heterosexuals and homosexuals, who had no ongoing mental problems.
Winston Smith

Washington, DC

#156369 Aug 25, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>

Way to demonstrate what a coward you are Gary!
BTW chicken shit, calling you a liar isn't "incoherant", its FACT!
Yup, the poor bastard can only find "supporting evidence" for his notions in fringe groups. This requires fobbing off the majority as puppets for gay activists. I find it amusing that an orgnanisation like the APA can be coerced by such a tiny segment of the population. You'd think that the foaming mouthed gargons on Gary's side would be a much more formidable force.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156370 Aug 26, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>little red ridding hood ran into the big bad wolf in the forest. The wolf said hey Red give up the basket or I will fluck you, Red replied no flucking way asshat stick to the story and eat me.
Crude and vulgar attempt at diversion from a devastating bitch slap of reality.

Change your post handle.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156371 Aug 26, 2012
Prof Dingleberry wrote:
<quoted text>
So you can't supply the name of your made up Stanford scientist that you claim you quoted.
Shocker! Thanks for proving you are as big of a lying chicken shit coward as your boy friend Gary.
Don't worry Kimare, everyone was already aware of this.
No worries Scoffer,

I won't waste my time providing his name so you can scoff.

'Everyone' knows the principles of evolution he uses are valid. Even you.

All you need to do is disprove them.

Smirk.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156373 Aug 26, 2012
RnL2008 wrote:
<quoted text>
Didn't hit home and didn't teach my child it.....but it is just that a nursery rhyme......like any other nursery rhyme. It has no real bearing on life!!!
I know lots of straight couples who are married and can't have children or simple don't want them......so, again marriage is a lot more than just having sex and getting pregnant.
I did say it, so what.......back when I was a kid, no one had Same-Sex parents that I was aware of, though I did happen to know a kid whose mother was a Lesbian and she visited her mother every other weekend. I also had a couple of friends of mine who were brother and sister, whose parents were interracial......this was in 1970 and people didn't like their children playing with these kids.....strictly because of who their parents happen to be.
You don't have to like that Gays and Lesbians are getting married, but they are and their marriages are truly no different than yours.......oh and the crap about you having to learn about your wife because she is a woman and you're a man is a challenge......well, guess what.....just because my wife and I are both women......we still have to learn about what each of us like or don't like........we aren't the same person, just the same sex!!!
Honey,

Your post is dripping denial.

Why are gays so desperately DENYING children so they can pretend marriage?

Then they can paste together a manufactured family WITH children!

Marriage and family are like a tree. It grows that way naturally.

Gay unions with children are like plywood. A bunch of pieces pasted together.

A sad, sick irony, isn't it?

“The Great and Wonderful Marvel”

Since: Aug 09

Atlanta, GA

#156375 Aug 26, 2012
Winston Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You're reading an angelfire shill piece, numpty. Written by someone who's PhD wasn't in the field of psychology. Get that straight, alledged straighty. His, and your, blathering about the study group are a bit rich. The year was 1957. The prevailing attitude about homosexuals was on par with yours. A hate fest steeped in... wait for it... no scientific evidence. There had been no more 'proof' that homosexuality was a mental disorder than there had been proof that blacks and women were inferior to men, or that the genuinely mentally ill were possessed by demons. However, by 1957, it was still common knowledge that blacks were inferior and women were also a bit on the intellectually challenged side. The mentally ill, in spite of having been lifted from the categopopulation. You sir, are perpetuating garbage from a bygone era (or should I say error). But I digress, finding a random sampling of homosexuals in 1957 would have been about as easy as finding a viable neuron in your head. It also appears that the woman you find in contempt had difficulty finding heterosexual individuals willing to partake in the study. I wonder why!
The bottom line is that you, and your latest shill for hatred, are missing the point of the woman's study. She got a sampling of gays and heteros to fill out some basic tests, like the Rorschach, and had others look at the results. Her findings were simple, gays couldn't be distingquished from heteros based upon some tests used to determine mental illness.
Find us a study conducted on a population you won't jump up and down about that refutes her conclusions. You must avoid hate groups like the FRC and mAssResistance though. They've already been shown to be biased, repeatedly. Hooker's 'bias' was based upon her experiences over the course of the two or so decades prior to her '57 paper. Specifically, she'd known gays and had yet to find one with horns protruding from their brow.
Your little fairy story directly above is charming and makes for good homosexual urban legend, but it has nothing to do with the facts, I'm afraid.

Gay folklore has it that the science on homosexuality was a vast wasteland of ignorance until the "Rosa Parks" of the Gay Liberation Movement, Evelyn Hooker, came along in 1957.

Gay folklore leaves out the fact that for the 60 years preceeding Hooker the APA based its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder NOT on whim and caprice but hundreds of psychological and psychiatric studies; leastwise, this is the opinion of noted American psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physician, educator, and author Dr. Charles Socarides.

And please note Socarides is both a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, unlike Hooker, who was a psychologist alone.

As I say, in his book, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes Socarides writes the following:
"To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"
In other words, Winston, your make-believe story of Hooker pulling the cloak of ignorance from everyone's eyes is just a gay fairy-tale. By the late 1960s the APA was in possession of hundreds of scientific papers that showed just the opposite of Hooker's paper. Indeed, Hooker's work was just the one the gay activists of her day decided to pump-up and promote -- as well as supply the hand-picked homosexual subjects for.

There's more, Winston, but since you're not the brightest guy around, I'll be spoon-feeding slowly ... very slowly.

So, do you grasp what I'm saying so far, son?

Reality

Madison, WI

#156376 Aug 26, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your little fairy story directly above is charming and makes for good homosexual urban legend, but it has nothing to do with the facts, I'm afraid.
Gay folklore has it that the science on homosexuality was a vast wasteland of ignorance until the "Rosa Parks" of the Gay Liberation Movement, Evelyn Hooker, came along in 1957.
Gay folklore leaves out the fact that for the 60 years preceeding Hooker the APA based its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder NOT on whim and caprice but hundreds of psychological and psychiatric studies; leastwise, this is the opinion of noted American psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physician, educator, and author Dr. Charles Socarides.
And please note Socarides is both a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, unlike Hooker, who was a psychologist alone.
As I say, in his book, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes Socarides writes the following:
<quoted text>
In other words, Winston, your make-believe story of Hooker pulling the cloak of ignorance from everyone's eyes is just a gay fairy-tale. By the late 1960s the APA was in possession of hundreds of scientific papers that showed just the opposite of Hooker's paper. Indeed, Hooker's work was just the one the gay activists of her day decided to pump-up and promote -- as well as supply the hand-picked homosexual subjects for.
There's more, Winston, but since you're not the brightest guy around, I'll be spoon-feeding slowly ... very slowly.
So, do you grasp what I'm saying so far, son?
Ummm no please do go on for a few more pages, I am out of toilet paper. Now where is that print button, OH yea control-P
Reality

Madison, WI

#156377 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey,
Your post is dripping denial.
Why are gays so desperately DENYING children so they can pretend marriage?
Then they can paste together a manufactured family WITH children!
Marriage and family are like a tree. It grows that way naturally.
Gay unions with children are like plywood. A bunch of pieces pasted together.
A sad, sick irony, isn't it?
I keep searching for the law that makes procreation a requirement in marriage, so far no luck, how about you?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#156378 Aug 26, 2012
Romney has pledged to nominate judges who will apply law as written instead of writing new laws to favor a mascot victim group. The election choice can't be starker; Obama's new view for America or Romney's faith in our Constitution.

R/R 2012

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156379 Aug 26, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>I keep searching for the law that makes procreation a requirement in marriage, so far no luck, how about you?
You will find it right next to the law that requires gay couples NOT to procreate as a requirement for gay unions.

Smirk.
Reality

Madison, WI

#156380 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
You will find it right next to the law that requires gay couples NOT to procreate as a requirement for gay unions.
Smirk.
So you agree, having children is not a requirement of marriage. The question is this. Why Do you keep bringing it up as if it where? y guess would be you don't have a valid argument to deny same sex marriage. Carry on asshat.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#156381 Aug 26, 2012
Children are the product of marriage. Raising children by the kid's mother and father is a value given by the social ideal of marriage. Not a requirement, a result. The most effective way for a single mother to raise her family from poverty, is to marry the father of her child. If young people would complete high school, find a job, marry and then have children, there would be less poverty.

Life's not perfect, but it's good to have ideal models, like marriage as one man and one woman. Sorry if you can't deal with that, but it doesn't make you a bad person.
Winston Smith

Columbia, MD

#156382 Aug 26, 2012
Prof Marvel wrote:
<quoted text>
Your little fairy story directly above is charming and makes for good homosexual urban legend, but it has nothing to do with the facts, I'm afraid.
Gay folklore has it that the science on homosexuality was a vast wasteland of ignorance until the "Rosa Parks" of the Gay Liberation Movement, Evelyn Hooker, came along in 1957.
Gay folklore leaves out the fact that for the 60 years preceeding Hooker the APA based its classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder NOT on whim and caprice but hundreds of psychological and psychiatric studies; leastwise, this is the opinion of noted American psychiatrist, psychoanalyst, physician, educator, and author Dr. Charles Socarides.
And please note Socarides is both a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, unlike Hooker, who was a psychologist alone.
As I say, in his book, Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality writes Socarides writes the following:
<quoted text>
In other words, Winston, your make-believe story of Hooker pulling the cloak of ignorance from everyone's eyes is just a gay fairy-tale. By the late 1960s the APA was in possession of hundreds of scientific papers that showed just the opposite of Hooker's paper. Indeed, Hooker's work was just the one the gay activists of her day decided to pump-up and promote -- as well as supply the hand-picked homosexual subjects for.
There's more, Winston, but since you're not the brightest guy around, I'll be spoon-feeding slowly ... very slowly.
So, do you grasp what I'm saying so far, son?
I just love your MO, Gary. "You're wrong and I'll show you why later." Very effective technique. Especially when followed by nothing of substance. Carry on though. Don't let honesty get in your way either.
Winston Smith

Columbia, MD

#156383 Aug 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Children are the product of marriage. Raising children by the kid's mother and father is a value given by the social ideal of marriage. Not a requirement, a result. The most effective way for a single mother to raise her family from poverty, is to marry the father of her child. If young people would complete high school, find a job, marry and then have children, there would be less poverty.
Life's not perfect, but it's good to have ideal models, like marriage as one man and one woman. Sorry if you can't deal with that, but it doesn't make you a bad person.
Brilliant!

If everyone who had a child was married, and a good parent, there'd be no need for adoption and there'd be no step parents. However, that ain't a realistic expectation. There are horrible parents out there. Divorce happens. That is reality. Sorry if you can't deal with that, but it doesn't make you a bad person.
If everyone had a high paying job, there'd be no poverty. Unfortunately there are a lot of not so well paying jobs out there as well as unemployed folk. Sorry if you can't deal with reality, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

“KiMare'a the Monster Mutation”

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#156384 Aug 26, 2012
Reality wrote:
<quoted text>So you agree, having children is not a requirement of marriage. The question is this. Why Do you keep bringing it up as if it where? y guess would be you don't have a valid argument to deny same sex marriage. Carry on asshat.
I'll agree as soon as you show me where gays are required NOT to procreate as a condition for gay unions.

Can I suggest 'Denial' for your new post handle?

Smile.
Pokie

Covina, CA

#156385 Aug 26, 2012
Such a waste of time to paint over this.
Winston Smith

Columbia, MD

#156387 Aug 26, 2012
KiMare wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll agree as soon as you show me where gays are required NOT to procreate as a condition for gay unions.
Can I suggest 'Denial' for your new post handle?
Smile.
This is hilarious! You're bargaining with a total stranger about whether or not marriage must include procreation (it doesn't, by the way). You really are a bit touched. You must be Gary's long lost twin.
Mona Lott

Hoboken, NJ

#156388 Aug 26, 2012
Brian_G wrote:
Children are the product of marriage. Raising children by the kid's mother and father is a value given by the social ideal of marriage. Not a requirement, a result. The most effective way for a single mother to raise her family from poverty, is to marry the father of her child. If young people would complete high school, find a job, marry and then have children, there would be less poverty.
Life's not perfect, but it's good to have ideal models, like marriage as one man and one woman. Sorry if you can't deal with that, but it doesn't make you a bad person.
Brian. Children are the product of sexual intercourse (or artificial insemination), not marriage.

You wrote:
"If young people would complete high school, find a job, marry and then have children, there would be less poverty."

Dear god, Brian!...or should I call you Pollyanna? Are you seriously THAT stupid?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Beverly Hills Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bobbi Kristina Brown found unresponsive in bat... 7 hr AuthorMen 1
Earthquake could imperil L.A.'s water supply 18 hr squeezers 4
Marco Rubio in 2016! 22 hr Tony 10
A girl waves a Mexican flag during rallies in L... (Mar '06) 22 hr Skew da Poich 4,504
Chinese tourists power-shopping in U.S. (Aug '13) Fri You Sociopath di... 7
Buy High Quality Documents - Replica's and Rest... Fri docsforyoufast 1
Preliminary Injunction Granted Against White Fe... (Feb '08) Fri ESE MAGA 66

Beverly Hills News Video

Beverly Hills Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Beverly Hills People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 11:49 pm PST